http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENTKENDRA, DEHRADUN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/09/1985

BENCH: SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) BENCH: SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:  1985 SCALE  (2)906

ACT:     Conflict between development and conservation--Need  for reconciling   the  two  in  the  larger  interest   of   the country--Quarrying    and   excavation   of    lime    stone deposits--Directions issued.

HEADNOTE:     These Writ Petitions relate to the mining of lime  stone quarries in Dehradun mining area. During the pendency of the Writ  Petitions,  the Court appointed a Committee  known  as Bhargav  Committee  for the purpose of inspecting  the  lime stone quarries mentioned in the Writ Petitions. The  Govern- ment  of India had also appointed a working Group headed  by the same, Shri D.N. Bhargav, who was a member of the Bhargav Committee  appointed  by the Court, on the  mining  of  lime stone  quarries  in Dehradun-Mussoorie area,  some  time  in 1983.  After  the hearing was over, the Court passed  a  de- tailed  order on 12th March, 1985 [1985) 3 SCR  169]  giving various  directions and observing that the reasons  for  the order will be set out in the judgment to follow later.     Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Sen, one of the members of  the Bench  who  heard  these petitions  before  his  retirement, speaking for himself,     OBSERVED:  I.  It is not necessary to give  any  further reasons  than  those which are already stated in  the  order made  by  the Court on 12th March, 1985  because  the  broad reasons  have been adequately set out in that order  and  it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate them. [639C]     2.  Industrial  development is  necessary  for  economic growth  of  the country. If, however, industrial  growth  is sought  to be achieved by haphazard and reckless working  of the mines resulting in loss of life, loss of property,  loss of  basic  amenities like supply of water  and  creation  of ecological  imbalance, there may ultimately be no real  eco- nomic  growth  and no real prosperity. It  is  necessary  to strike a proper balance. Appropriate authorities at the time of granting leases should take all these facts into  consid- eration and also provide for adequate safeguards. [640D-F] 638

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition No. 8209 & 882  1  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

1983. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)     M.A.   Krishnamoorthy,  Pramod Dayal, Rishi  Kesh,  R.B. Mehrotra,  M.G. Ramachandran, C.M. Nayyar,  M.  Karanjawala, S.A. Sayed, Sushil Kumar Jain, S. Dikshit, P.P. Juneja, P.K. Jain,  K.N.  Bhatt, D.N. Misra, I. Makwana,  A.  Subba  Rao, Harjinder  Singh, B.P. Singh, Parijat Sinha, C.P. Lal,  Shri Narain, S.K. Gupta, K.R. Nambiar, S.S. Khanduja, K.K.  Jain, C.M. Nargolkar, Kapil Sibal, R. Ramachandran, Miss A. Subha- shini  for the Appearing Parties and Devi Ditta  Mal,  Peti- tioner-in-person. The Judgment was delivered by     AMARENDRA  NATH  SEN, J: We disposed of these  two  writ petitions  by an order made on 12th March, 1985 by which  we directed that the lime stone quarries classified in category C in the Bhargava Committee Report should not be allowed  to be operated and the same direction of closing down the  lime stone quarries should also apply to  the lime stone quarries in  the  Sahsatdhara Block even though they, are  placed  in category  B by the Bhargava Committee. We also  directed  by our  order  that  so far as the other  lime  stone  quarries classified  as category B in the Bhargava  Committee  Report and  category 2 in the Working Group Report  are  concerned, they  should not be allowed to continue nor should  they  be closed  down  permanently  without further  inquiry  and  we accordingly appointed a high powered committee consisting of several officers to examine any scheme or schemes which  may be submitted by the lessees of these lime stone quarries and submit report to’ this Court on the question whether in  its opinion a particular lime stone quarry can be allowed to  be operated in accordance with the scheme and if so, subject to what conditions and if it cannot be allowed to be  operated, the  reasons for taking that view. We gave the  same  direc- tions  also in regard to the lime stone quarries  Classified as category A in Bhargava Committee Report and for  category 1  in the Working Group Report and falling within  the  city limits of Mussoorie. We also directed by our order that  the lime  stone  quarries placed in category 2  by  the  Working Group other than those which are placed in categories B  and C by the Bhargava Committee should also not be allowed to be operated  and should be dosed down save and except  for  the lime stone quarries covered by Mining Leases Nos. 31, 36 and 37  for which we gave the same direction as in the  case  of lime 639 stone  quarries  classified as category B  in  the  Bhargava Committee  Report. So far as lime stone quarries  classified as category A in the Bhargava Committee Report and/or  cate- gory  1 in the Working Group Report and falling outside  the city limits of Mussoorie are concerned we directed that they should  be allowed to be operated subject to the  observance of the requirements of the Mines Act 1952, the Metalliferous Mines  .Regulations 1961 and other relevant statutes,  rules and regulations. This order made by us was a detailed  order and  we stated at the time when we made this order  that  we shall  proceed to give detailed reasons for the same in  due course.     I do not think it necessary to give any further  reasons than those which are already stated in the order made by  us on 12th March, 1985. Speaking personally for myself I  think that  the broad reasons have been adequately set out in  the order  and it would be an unnecessary exercise to  elaborate them.  We have referred in the order to the reports  of  the Bhargava Committee and the Working Group and we have accept- ed these reports. The Bhargava Committee has classified  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

lime stone quarries into three categories namely, A, B and C while the Working Group has classified them into two catego- ries, namely, 1 and 2. The lime stone quarries comprised  in category  A  by the Bhargava Committee are the same  as  the lime stone quarries classified in category 1 by the  Working Group  and the lime stone quarries in categories B and C  of the  Bhargava Committee are classified in category 2 by  the Working  Group. Both the Bhargava Committee and the  Working Group are unanimous in their view that the lime stone  quar- ries classified in category A by the Bhargava Committee  and category 1 by the Working Group are suitable for continuance of  mining operations and they have given their reasons  for taking  this  view.  So far as the lime  stone  quarries  in category  C of the Bhargava Committee Report are  concerned, they are regarded both by the Bhargava Committee and by  the Working Group as unsuitable for continuance of mining opera- tions  and both are of the view that they should  be  closed down  for reasons which they have given in their  respective reports.  I agree with the reasons given in the  Reports  of the  Bhargava  Committee  and the Working  Group.  The  only difference  between the Bhargava Committee and  the  Working Group  is  in regard to lime stone  quarries  classified  in category  B where the Bhargava Committee has taken the  view that these lime stone quarries need not be closed down while the  Working Group has definitely taken the view that  these lime  stone quarries are not suitable for further mining.  I have  preferred not to take the extreme view of the  Working Group so far as the lime stone quarries classified in  cate- gory B by the Bhargava Committee are con- 640 cerned, but have instead given an opportunity to the lessees of  those lime stone quarries to submit a scheme or  schemes to the high powered committee constituted by us, so that  if the  high powered committee thinks that any particular  lime stone  quarry out of these can be allowed to be operated  in accordance with such scheme or schemes, the court may  allow such lime stone quarry to be operated subject to  conditions which  may be thought fit to be imposed. These are the  rea- sons which have prevailed with me in making the order  dated 12th March, 1985.     I  wish to observe that though exploitation  of  mineral resources in the interest of industrial growth of the  coun- try is necessary, yet such mines should be so worked as  not to disturb the ecology and not to affect the livelihood  and the  living  conditions of a very large  number  of  people. Advantage gained by working the mines for industrial  growth and  national  development in a manner which  may  seriously prejudice  the interests of a large number of  human  beings and  disturb the ecological balance, may very much  be  out- weighed  by  the serious consequences which  are  likely  to follow.  Industrial  development is necessary  for  economic growth of the country in the larger interests of the nation. If,  however, industrial growth is sought to be achieved  by haphazard  and  reckless working of the mines  resulting  in loss of life, loss of property, loss of basic amenities like supply of water and creation of ecological imbalance,  there may ultimately be no real economic growth and no real  pros- perity.  It is necessary to strike a proper balance.  In  my opinion the appropriate authorities at the time of  granting leases should take all these facts and factors into  consid- eration and should while granting lease of mines for exploi- tation  of  mineral  provide for  adequate  safeguards.  Had appropriate safeguards been provided at the time of granting of leases, it would not, indeed, have been necessary for  us to  direct the closure of so many mines and to good deal  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

sufferings  of  the people of the locality would  have  been avoided. A.P.J. 641